Not a single paragraph about the actual demands of Russia. Which they have stated often enough. Basically they don’t want NATO right on their doorstep. This is what this whole war was about. But somehow this is never seriously discussed in western media.
If this war was about having NATO on their doorstep, why is it an invasion of a non-NATO country twenty years after the first neighbours of Russia joined NATO? It’s never seriously discussed because it’s either a lie or unfathomably stupid, and whichever of those two it is doesn’t much matter.
Just for a second, imagine you’re a neutral country in eastern Europe. Russia has been fucking with Georgia and Moldova since the fall of the Soviet Union, and now it invades Ukraine for the second time within a decade. Russia has never touched a NATO country despite bordering several of them for literally decades. And then Russia acts all shocked when you say you want into NATO
Yeah and Russia protested strongly every time. But Ukraine was their red line. Just because you didn’t read it in western media doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
I don’t condone the invasion but it was predictable and a colossal “failure” of diplomacy if you look at it charitably. At worst it was a long term plan to force Russia into a conflict with the aid of western media to obscure the reason why this war was happening. Russia is acting just like the US would.
So invading Ukraine fixes what for Russia, exactly? The fastest way to make more of Russia’s neighbours join NATO is to show them that they’re safer in NATO. Like Finland.
Ukrainians mostly weren’t interested in joining NATO until Russia took Crimea. Russia pushed Ukraine towards NATO.
“Ukraine applied to integrate with a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008. Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine following the 2010 presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych”. Then the Euromaiden protests happened. Then Crimea etc.
It’s pretty safe to assume that both Russia and the US meddled in the respective election through NGOs and whatnot. My point is that these are geopolitical games which both sides play and which should be reported as such. Then we’d have a chance to protest for peace negotiations. But as is there is an overwhelming amount of pro-war sentiment.
Public support for joining NATO among polled Ukrainians was very clearly the minority up until Russia invaded.
But as is there is an overwhelming amount of pro-war sentiment.
There’s an overwhelming amount of anti-invasion sentiment. People that support arming Ukraine support Ukraine’s right to not have chunks carved out of it just because its neighbour has a bigger army.
So what? My point was that there were no concrete plans to expand to Ukraine when Putin took Crimea in 2014. If the problem is NATO expansion why invade a country where NATO is not expanding to?
It was the other way, the “Cuban” missile crisis happened when USA wasn’t happy when USSR responded in kind to USA placing missiles in Turkey. So it should be called “Turkish missile crisis” and really “USA missile crisis”.
Just the western popular propaganda conveniently omits who was the instigator of entire issue, but it’s not that hard to find.
Read the message you were replying to. I asked specifically how do you force a country to invade a other country (that is not yours). You told about Cuba, so naturally I wanted to confirm if you mean the situation was caused by desire of Soviets to start the aggression.
Please explain how exactly do you force someone (who suggests to be reasonable) into conflict, basically force them to invade anyone.
Well imagine if China were to make a military pact with Mexico and started delivering “defensive” weapon systems to them. There would be protests, sanctions, meddling and attempts for regime change, and if those didn’t work there would be invasion.
For the US to invade another country it actually takes far less. Getting bombed is super easy.
Do you live in some alternative reality where the US didn’t invade Irak and Afghanistan? And is bombing countries all over the world for whatever reason? Oh let me guess that is TOTALLY different!
I doubt many here will defend the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of these invasions should have happened, BUT no they are not the same. In case of Afghanistan the US supported the Northern alliance in a pre-existing civil war. Iraq was lead by a brutal dictator who had been involved in wars of aggression (Kuwait) and genocide (Kurds).
I could list some of Russia’s justifications for invasion, but they are just as flimsy as the US justifications for killing hundreds of thousands of people and devastating many countries.
My point isn’t to justify Russia or the US, it’s pointing out without a popular push for peace these wars will keep happening. Instead we’re seeing a completely brainwashed majority scream for total war and just eat up the propaganda.
We all live in a reality where the US did invade Iraq and Afghanistan. And here is the thought process of me trying to understand your reasoning behind mentioning these events in current context:
The US asked many times for Iraq and Afghanistan to not try to oppose them. According to the US, Iraq and Afghanistan bombed its own citizens (who call themselves the people of the US) for several (at least 8) years and finally the US decided to intervene.
But in fact it must have been caused by someone else, like China or Russia. They provided Iraq and Afghanistan with weapons and/or proposed them the place in alliance against the US, which is why the US didn’t have a choice.
From the very start of those invasions, the whole world decided to stand against the US and provided Iraq and Afghanistan with all the weapons and resources they could need in order to protect themselves. Massive sanctions were applied against the US to stop its war machine.
The US massively increased pressure on free speech and started to jail its own citizens who speak against the war. This also caused at least 1 percent of the US population to migrate elsewhere.
Because this all (or at least some of it) happened with the US, there is no problem in assuming that it would be fine to happen with other country (like Russia) and nobody should say a word against that country’s right for protecting its interests.
If this is what really happened then you are correct and this not “totally different” but exactly the same.
But if there are differences, I hope you can explain them without involving any kind of “injustice” towards Russia.
But if there are differences, I hope you can explain them without involving any kind of “injustice” towards Russia.
Geography? Hey wait, you’re trying to trick me! If I explain the differences I loose the debate!
My point is that from Russia’s point of view (true or not) NATO is a hostile military alliance that has slowly been encircling Russia for the past decades. Russia’s protests were ignored so after the 2014 coup supported by literal Nazis (from their point of view) they started to use military interventions. US / EU / NATO did double down on arming Ukraine with weapons so they saw themselves “forced” to invade.
I’m not excusing any of this - but these choices and events made this war predictable and inevitable. I’d go so far and say that if Putin hadn’t invaded Ukraine he would have been deposed by the militaristic powers he cultivated. It’s like poking a bear and then crying foul when he eats your face.
Thus my example about China arming Mexico. The US would react in the exact same way, and we have ample historical evidence for that. And it’s not my point that this excuses anything, it’s that these things are predictable so we do carry a responsibility to deescalate, demand negotiations so Ukraine gets their land back while Russia gets security guarantees. But judging by the complete troll answer in Tuckers Putin interview that isn’t in the cards right now.
But there was no resistance to this geopolitical “gambit”. And now everyone is presenting a completely false version of history.
I guess ignoring how Ukrainians ran the russian puppet heading their country out of the country just before the Crimean invasion of 2014 is convenient for your point.
Appeasement does not work. It has never worked. It didnt work in Sudetenland, it didnt work in Crimea, and it would never have worked with Donbas, either.
Oh no, i compared facsists to other fascists. But keep going with the false equivalences, thats certainly the way to convince the voters thats working for u.
In case u other readers havent been paying attention, russia is still threatening Poland, Lithuania, and Finland just as they have been for their whole history.
My hole point is that Russia is portrayed as a demonic, irrational Hitler that can’t be reasoned with. So all their demands are irrelevant and negotiations useless. And nato and the US empire is just a well meaning benevolent force that nobody has any reason to oppose. So we have to keep the war going!
That is the propaganda. And so far all the replies have basically confirmed this.
It is discussed, it doesn’t stand up to any reasoning as to why they captured the Crimean peninsula. They also stated that it was because Ukraine couldn’t stop the rise of Nazism. So which is it? NATO or Nazis?
Ukraine is an independent country and if they want to join NATO they can, having a legitimate grievance doesn’t excuse an invasion.
And even if it was true and was accepted, what a disaster it was because it bolstered a floundering NATO, grew membership and increased military spending across the continent. Truly a genius move.
Basically they don’t want NATO right on their doorstep.
NATO is not the anti-Russia club. They’re a defensive pact. Why would you be concerned about your neighbours agreeing to defend each other? Like a neighbourhood watch, perhaps. Maybe you’d be upset if you’re planning to do the thing they’re defending against. Which is all the more reason for those neighbours to band together.
That’s how Putin claims to perceive it, but that’s also what he would claim if his actual goal was to control his neighbours by force. And don’t forget Finland and Sweden responded to the invasion of Ukraine by joining NATO. If Russia perceived NATO as a threat, then Finland joining would make them more likely to be attacked. Clearly Finland feels NATO is making them safer or they wouldn’t have joined. And since then, Russia has moved tons of their military away from NATO borders and into Ukraine.
In other words, I trust the actions of Finland and Russia more than I trust the words of Russia.
You know, you have a point. But I’ll note both instances had the UN request NATO intervention. Russia could have blocked either with their veto in the UN Security Council, but they didn’t.
Not to mention the actual voting on intervention was in the start of 1992, when the comprador Russian government (the same one btw that got promised by USA they won’t add former socialist countries to NATO) was choking on USA boot.
I think you’re missing a paragraph that tells how the border between Russia and NATO increased twofold since (and as the result of) the invasion.
“Hey it’s all about NATO. We always wanted less NATO at our doorsteps, and you can see we tried our best to achieve this. That backfired, yes, but we ask you once again to… Ask all those countries nicely to withdraw from NATO. Having NATO at our borders is not healthy for our people, you see… With all those bio laboratories… And parent№1+parent№2 policy that you force on everyone…”
Russia said since 2014 this was about NATO. Even before they protested strongly the NATO expansion. So how can it not be about NATO? You’re either completely uninformed or lying.
Uh… yes, we do? I mean not only about NATO, but definitely also about NATO. Even liberals like Jeffrey Sachs and radlibs like Noam Chomsky and undead ghouls like Henry Kissinger agree.
It’s an element but anyone saying the war was started because of NATO is clearly bullshitting. Now if you were to ask why the war is still going on despite both sides wanting peace, NATO is a pretty succinct and accurate explanation.
Well if you insist on not taking Russia seriously - then you must be very pleased with the result. Maybe you should call Putin a Hitler a few more times, that will solve everything :D
I’m a Lemmygrad Andy, if there’s any tankie in this conversation, it’s me. Person’s on ee they’re probably only parroting outdated propaganda because they’re a neo-reactionary, (or an outright fascist) not because they’re communist.
Putin’s agenda of steering the American right into self-destruction to neutralize their geopolitical opponent is going to result in a lot of lot of neo-fascists hitting themselves out of confusion, so keep your eyes open for that.
Because they don’t get the option to choose. It’s not that difficult. Those countries weren’t clamoring to join NATO until Russia invaded, so its their own fault.
This is a very poor and very thin justification for invading another country, killing its citizens and kidnapping children.
It’s not being seriously discussed in western media because it’s not a serious argument. It’s very obviously a transparent excuse for an ambitious tyrant to try to acquire more territory through military force.
Oh please, we don’t have to take what they say seriously in order to take them seriously. The only reason to pay any attention to their propaganda is to understand what they think is important enough to tell lies about.
Yes and the reason to not take them seriously is in order to completely demonize Russia and avoid negotiations, so as to continue the war indefinitely. Who profits from this?
Their demands are irrelevant while on the soil of a sovereign nation without authorization or sufficient leverage. Both of which are not only lacking but severely so.
If buying stuff from the other side is your yardstick, NATO clearly wasn’t a threat to Russia. Germany, Italy, France, and America were all some of Russia’s largest import sources in 2021.
This whole shit storm has been about one thing. Putins legacy as the czar that reformed the USSR. That’s it. He wants to lift the iron curtain high once more. It’s all dick stroking by a madman.
Not a single paragraph about the actual demands of Russia. Which they have stated often enough. Basically they don’t want NATO right on their doorstep. This is what this whole war was about. But somehow this is never seriously discussed in western media.
If this war was about having NATO on their doorstep, why is it an invasion of a non-NATO country twenty years after the first neighbours of Russia joined NATO? It’s never seriously discussed because it’s either a lie or unfathomably stupid, and whichever of those two it is doesn’t much matter.
Just for a second, imagine you’re a neutral country in eastern Europe. Russia has been fucking with Georgia and Moldova since the fall of the Soviet Union, and now it invades Ukraine for the second time within a decade. Russia has never touched a NATO country despite bordering several of them for literally decades. And then Russia acts all shocked when you say you want into NATO
Yeah and Russia protested strongly every time. But Ukraine was their red line. Just because you didn’t read it in western media doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
I don’t condone the invasion but it was predictable and a colossal “failure” of diplomacy if you look at it charitably. At worst it was a long term plan to force Russia into a conflict with the aid of western media to obscure the reason why this war was happening. Russia is acting just like the US would.
So invading Ukraine fixes what for Russia, exactly? The fastest way to make more of Russia’s neighbours join NATO is to show them that they’re safer in NATO. Like Finland.
Ukrainians mostly weren’t interested in joining NATO until Russia took Crimea. Russia pushed Ukraine towards NATO.
“Ukraine applied to integrate with a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008. Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine following the 2010 presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych”. Then the Euromaiden protests happened. Then Crimea etc.
It’s pretty safe to assume that both Russia and the US meddled in the respective election through NGOs and whatnot. My point is that these are geopolitical games which both sides play and which should be reported as such. Then we’d have a chance to protest for peace negotiations. But as is there is an overwhelming amount of pro-war sentiment.
Public support for joining NATO among polled Ukrainians was very clearly the minority up until Russia invaded.
There’s an overwhelming amount of anti-invasion sentiment. People that support arming Ukraine support Ukraine’s right to not have chunks carved out of it just because its neighbour has a bigger army.
they couldn’t join NATO because of crimea, explain what they really want
What are you talking about? There were no concrete plans for Ukraine to enter NATO prior to the invasion in 2014.
See first paragraph. Russia has protested NATO eastward expansion and warned for decades.
So what? My point was that there were no concrete plans to expand to Ukraine when Putin took Crimea in 2014. If the problem is NATO expansion why invade a country where NATO is not expanding to?
Please explain how exactly do you force someone (who suggests to be reasonable) into conflict, basically force them to invade anyone.
Did the Poland “forced” Hitler to start the WW2 the same way?
It’s hardly unprecedented. The USA felt forced into an aggressive response to the Soviets putting missiles in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It was the other way, the “Cuban” missile crisis happened when USA wasn’t happy when USSR responded in kind to USA placing missiles in Turkey. So it should be called “Turkish missile crisis” and really “USA missile crisis”.
Just the western popular propaganda conveniently omits who was the instigator of entire issue, but it’s not that hard to find.
So it was Soviet plan to start the aggression? Is it the same with Finland? When can we expect Putin to invade it?
I don’t get it, what do you mean?
Read the message you were replying to. I asked specifically how do you force a country to invade a other country (that is not yours). You told about Cuba, so naturally I wanted to confirm if you mean the situation was caused by desire of Soviets to start the aggression.
Well imagine if China were to make a military pact with Mexico and started delivering “defensive” weapon systems to them. There would be protests, sanctions, meddling and attempts for regime change, and if those didn’t work there would be invasion.
For the US to invade another country it actually takes far less. Getting bombed is super easy.
Imagine justifying real war by imagining things.
These sentences don’t make sense as the response for the quotation.
Do you live in some alternative reality where the US didn’t invade Irak and Afghanistan? And is bombing countries all over the world for whatever reason? Oh let me guess that is TOTALLY different!
I doubt many here will defend the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of these invasions should have happened, BUT no they are not the same. In case of Afghanistan the US supported the Northern alliance in a pre-existing civil war. Iraq was lead by a brutal dictator who had been involved in wars of aggression (Kuwait) and genocide (Kurds).
I could list some of Russia’s justifications for invasion, but they are just as flimsy as the US justifications for killing hundreds of thousands of people and devastating many countries.
My point isn’t to justify Russia or the US, it’s pointing out without a popular push for peace these wars will keep happening. Instead we’re seeing a completely brainwashed majority scream for total war and just eat up the propaganda.
We all live in a reality where the US did invade Iraq and Afghanistan. And here is the thought process of me trying to understand your reasoning behind mentioning these events in current context:
The US asked many times for Iraq and Afghanistan to not try to oppose them. According to the US, Iraq and Afghanistan bombed its own citizens (who call themselves the people of the US) for several (at least 8) years and finally the US decided to intervene.
But in fact it must have been caused by someone else, like China or Russia. They provided Iraq and Afghanistan with weapons and/or proposed them the place in alliance against the US, which is why the US didn’t have a choice.
From the very start of those invasions, the whole world decided to stand against the US and provided Iraq and Afghanistan with all the weapons and resources they could need in order to protect themselves. Massive sanctions were applied against the US to stop its war machine.
The US massively increased pressure on free speech and started to jail its own citizens who speak against the war. This also caused at least 1 percent of the US population to migrate elsewhere.
Because this all (or at least some of it) happened with the US, there is no problem in assuming that it would be fine to happen with other country (like Russia) and nobody should say a word against that country’s right for protecting its interests.
If this is what really happened then you are correct and this not “totally different” but exactly the same.
But if there are differences, I hope you can explain them without involving any kind of “injustice” towards Russia.
Geography? Hey wait, you’re trying to trick me! If I explain the differences I loose the debate!
My point is that from Russia’s point of view (true or not) NATO is a hostile military alliance that has slowly been encircling Russia for the past decades. Russia’s protests were ignored so after the 2014 coup supported by literal Nazis (from their point of view) they started to use military interventions. US / EU / NATO did double down on arming Ukraine with weapons so they saw themselves “forced” to invade.
I’m not excusing any of this - but these choices and events made this war predictable and inevitable. I’d go so far and say that if Putin hadn’t invaded Ukraine he would have been deposed by the militaristic powers he cultivated. It’s like poking a bear and then crying foul when he eats your face.
Thus my example about China arming Mexico. The US would react in the exact same way, and we have ample historical evidence for that. And it’s not my point that this excuses anything, it’s that these things are predictable so we do carry a responsibility to deescalate, demand negotiations so Ukraine gets their land back while Russia gets security guarantees. But judging by the complete troll answer in Tuckers Putin interview that isn’t in the cards right now.
But there was no resistance to this geopolitical “gambit”. And now everyone is presenting a completely false version of history.
Removed by mod
I guess ignoring how Ukrainians ran the russian puppet heading their country out of the country just before the Crimean invasion of 2014 is convenient for your point.
Appeasement does not work. It has never worked. It didnt work in Sudetenland, it didnt work in Crimea, and it would never have worked with Donbas, either.
Portraying Russia as Nazis is convenient for your point.
Removed by mod
“appeasement”… “sudetenland” lol who do you think you’re fooling.
Oh no, i compared facsists to other fascists. But keep going with the false equivalences, thats certainly the way to convince the voters thats working for u.
In case u other readers havent been paying attention, russia is still threatening Poland, Lithuania, and Finland just as they have been for their whole history.
My hole point is that Russia is portrayed as a demonic, irrational Hitler that can’t be reasoned with. So all their demands are irrelevant and negotiations useless. And nato and the US empire is just a well meaning benevolent force that nobody has any reason to oppose. So we have to keep the war going!
That is the propaganda. And so far all the replies have basically confirmed this.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Then turning Ukraine into Russian territory is a bit counter productive no? That would literally bring NATO to Russias doorstep.
They want a buffer zone. Makes sense in terms of military strategy.
It is discussed, it doesn’t stand up to any reasoning as to why they captured the Crimean peninsula. They also stated that it was because Ukraine couldn’t stop the rise of Nazism. So which is it? NATO or Nazis?
Ukraine is an independent country and if they want to join NATO they can, having a legitimate grievance doesn’t excuse an invasion.
And even if it was true and was accepted, what a disaster it was because it bolstered a floundering NATO, grew membership and increased military spending across the continent. Truly a genius move.
Hitler’s chief of staff was never prosecuted and later became NATO chief of staff. Many such cases.
Nazism wasn’t defeated by the US, it was successfully internationalized by them.
Gabriel Rockhill: The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fascism in WWII, It Discretely Internationalized It
But NATO already is on their doorstep. Norway, Estonia, Poland etc. Even USA is only a few mils away across the Bering Strait.
This is not about Ukraine joining NATO, that’s a convenience.
NATO is not the anti-Russia club. They’re a defensive pact. Why would you be concerned about your neighbours agreeing to defend each other? Like a neighbourhood watch, perhaps. Maybe you’d be upset if you’re planning to do the thing they’re defending against. Which is all the more reason for those neighbours to band together.
NATO was founded pretty much explicitly as the anti-USSR club. And it doesn’t even matter what it factually is - it’s what Russia perceives it as. See their final ultimatum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin’s_December_2021_ultimatum
That’s how Putin claims to perceive it, but that’s also what he would claim if his actual goal was to control his neighbours by force. And don’t forget Finland and Sweden responded to the invasion of Ukraine by joining NATO. If Russia perceived NATO as a threat, then Finland joining would make them more likely to be attacked. Clearly Finland feels NATO is making them safer or they wouldn’t have joined. And since then, Russia has moved tons of their military away from NATO borders and into Ukraine.
In other words, I trust the actions of Finland and Russia more than I trust the words of Russia.
Yes, it couldn’t have gone better if NATO planned this all along.
Wait until you hear what that defensive pact did in Yugoslavia and Libya
You know, you have a point. But I’ll note both instances had the UN request NATO intervention. Russia could have blocked either with their veto in the UN Security Council, but they didn’t.
I mean, no, the UN security council doesn’t have any power, they would have still gone through with the invasion.
Not to mention the actual voting on intervention was in the start of 1992, when the comprador Russian government (the same one btw that got promised by USA they won’t add former socialist countries to NATO) was choking on USA boot.
I think you’re missing a paragraph that tells how the border between Russia and NATO increased twofold since (and as the result of) the invasion.
“Hey it’s all about NATO. We always wanted less NATO at our doorsteps, and you can see we tried our best to achieve this. That backfired, yes, but we ask you once again to… Ask all those countries nicely to withdraw from NATO. Having NATO at our borders is not healthy for our people, you see… With all those bio laboratories… And parent№1+parent№2 policy that you force on everyone…”
My friend it was never about NATO. There is no prospective out there based in fact where NATO has anything to do with it.
The British news outlet The Guardian: “Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine
By “the Guardian” here what you mean is “an opinion piece from the fucking Cato Institute”
The answers are South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria
Russia said since 2014 this was about NATO. Even before they protested strongly the NATO expansion. So how can it not be about NATO? You’re either completely uninformed or lying.
You have the media literacy of a fly. Not even Russia supporters believe this is about NATO.
Removed by mod
Uh… yes, we do? I mean not only about NATO, but definitely also about NATO. Even liberals like Jeffrey Sachs and radlibs like Noam Chomsky and undead ghouls like Henry Kissinger agree.
It’s an element but anyone saying the war was started because of NATO is clearly bullshitting. Now if you were to ask why the war is still going on despite both sides wanting peace, NATO is a pretty succinct and accurate explanation.
You mean since they invaded Crimea and had to invent some narrative to justify their military conquest?
and US fascists say banning trans people is about protecting children. only a fool believes the narrative of a fascist
Well if you insist on not taking Russia seriously - then you must be very pleased with the result. Maybe you should call Putin a Hitler a few more times, that will solve everything :D
Removed by mod
I’m a Lemmygrad Andy, if there’s any tankie in this conversation, it’s me. Person’s on ee they’re probably only parroting outdated propaganda because they’re a neo-reactionary, (or an outright fascist) not because they’re communist.
Putin’s agenda of steering the American right into self-destruction to neutralize their geopolitical opponent is going to result in a lot of lot of neo-fascists hitting themselves out of confusion, so keep your eyes open for that.
While that may or may not be the case this does not permit interference of sovereign state from acting in its own best in own best interest.
Agreed - but it does make it somewhat of an “own goal”. The invasion was predictable. Western PR says it was totally surprising but it wasn’t.
I don’t want people like you in my comments but no one acknowledges that. So weird.
Because they don’t get the option to choose. It’s not that difficult. Those countries weren’t clamoring to join NATO until Russia invaded, so its their own fault.
Have you looked at a map of Europe lately?
This is a very poor and very thin justification for invading another country, killing its citizens and kidnapping children.
It’s not being seriously discussed in western media because it’s not a serious argument. It’s very obviously a transparent excuse for an ambitious tyrant to try to acquire more territory through military force.
So keep taking Russia and outer countries not serious. What’s the worst that could happen?
Oh please, we don’t have to take what they say seriously in order to take them seriously. The only reason to pay any attention to their propaganda is to understand what they think is important enough to tell lies about.
Yes and the reason to not take them seriously is in order to completely demonize Russia and avoid negotiations, so as to continue the war indefinitely. Who profits from this?
Removed by mod
Their demands are irrelevant while on the soil of a sovereign nation without authorization or sufficient leverage. Both of which are not only lacking but severely so.
which is a perfectly reasonable demand.
but since the US wants blood…
No, demanding your neighbours all remain weak enough for you to continue bullying is not perfectly reasonable at all
as opposed to having your biggest aggressor right in your doorstep?
All of the countries near Russia that joined NATO did so because they already have their biggest aggressor on their doorsteps.
so afraid that they based their energy grids on russian fuel
If buying stuff from the other side is your yardstick, NATO clearly wasn’t a threat to Russia. Germany, Italy, France, and America were all some of Russia’s largest import sources in 2021.
which all sounds really dumb if russia was that big of an aggressor in the first place. either that or you know, they werent.
Yep, those Russian tanks that crossed into Ukrainian sovereign land were tanks of peace.
This whole shit storm has been about one thing. Putins legacy as the czar that reformed the USSR. That’s it. He wants to lift the iron curtain high once more. It’s all dick stroking by a madman.
Removed by mod
Every time I tell you what I think of you it gets deleted. So I’ll just say see you next Tuesday.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod